Healthful Bites

Toned and Tidy

People with spick-and-span homes are more likely to be physically active than those who have messy abodes, says a study presented at the American College of Sports Medicine’s annual meeting.

After researching residences and activity levels of almost 1,000 St. Louisians? STL-ers? well, anyways…the cleanliness of the inside of the dwelling was the only factor correlated to total physical activity level. External factors such as noise, air quality and nearby surroundings (neighborhood/community factors) were not shown to be linked in this research.

While it’s unclear as to whether those who are physically active keep their homes cleaner or those who keep their homes cleaner are more able to be physically active, the link has been found, so that’s a first step. Cleaning house can be a great active endeavor—all the reaching, bending, pushing and scrubbing. In fact, a SELF magazine calculator says that a 150 lb. woman burns about 215 calories during one hour of general cleaning. So grab that vacuum and some Windex and squeak in some activity while straigtening up!

What is your choice active chore? Despite my slight grass allergy, I dig mowing the lawn. Being outside, listening to some tunes, getting a good walk and a bit of pushing strength in? That’s my idea of “house work.” Plus the results are so tangible to the naked eye!

 (Image from The Daily Green)

Things are looking up, like a cleaner’s activity level!

The Latest TV Dinner

In a fascinating attempt to learn more about food advertising on TV, scientists at Armstrong Atlantic State University decided to see what a diet would look like if people followed a 2,000 calorie meal plan involving only advertised foods in their promoted proportions. So if 40 percent of ads were for sugary cereal and treats in the 96 hours of TV examined by the researchers, the meal plan would be filled with 40 percent sugary items.

No big surprise: foods advertised on TV during the studied period in 2004 were almost always the less-than-nutritious ones. But check out these findings: following a diet based on TV ads would lead to consuming about 20 times the government recommended daily amount of fat and about 25 times the suggested intake of sugar. That amount of sweetness is about equal to how much one person should have in a whole month!

In fact the diet promoted in advertising is about as if the food pyramid was turned on it’s head: fats and sugars are promoted the most, and in this TV diet, fruits and vegetables would be about half as common as they should be.

But the persuasive nature of advertising can be used for good, study authors say. We know that spending $11.3 billion each year to sell food items is powerful and persuasive, and that same force can promote less processed eats. Interestingly, the researchers found that in past research, ads urging the public to increase “nutritious food” intake was not very beneficial. But if food manufacturers advertise their specific food products that are healthful, consumers will take notice and buy them.

What grabs your attention in advertising? Do you feel at all persuaded by what you see in between your favorite TV show segments?

 (Image from Yale University)

Homemade popcorn can be a great TV treat :)

Water cooler conversation starter: as if I wasn’t feeling ambivalent enough about having a baby…this woman’s story may push me over the edge to adopt. A 17-year-old mom from the UK was in labor with her son for nearly three weeks (!) before he was born five months premature at just 1 lb. 3 oz. Doctors gave little Daniel a 15 percent chance of survival. Thankfully, he just turned one. In hindsight, doctors believe the prolonged labor-like symptoms may have been part of an infection mom had at the time she delivered. 

So if you were in labor for 20 days like this woman, (and if you’re male, this may take a bit more imagination, but go with it… ;) ) what would you do during that time? How would you distract yourself? And what is the most amazing feat you believe the human body can accomplish? 

No Ad Smokes

We’ve talked about labeling debates with food products before here on Healthful Bites, and some health experts have said that fewer package health claims lead to less confused consumers. Australia may soon require that cigarette makers follow a similar idea, and Don Draper, for one, would not be happy about it!

An anti-smoking initiative by Australia’s Prime Minister would require all cigarette manufacturers to make their product boxes without any logos or designs.  (I say would, not will at this time, because the companies are actively researching their legal options to combat this). The new cartons would be blank, save graphic warnings against smoking.

Tobacco companies claim that this will cut into their profits in various ways. One: it would make their product look the same as their competitors, making the brand less distinguishable. Two: marketing would essentially become non-existent. The same anti-smoking crusade has also raised the taxes on a pack of cigarettes about 25 percent, effective at Midnight Australia time today.

In the past 12 years, the smoking rate Down Under has decreased by almost eight percent—which many attribute to increased taxes, educational campaigns and more strict marketing rules.

Do you feel it is right for the government to regulate the promotion of this dangerous habit? Or is this a “buyer beware” situation, meaning those who smoke already know they are harming their health?

 (Image from The Guardian)

Get Some Class for a Smaller…Backside (what did you think I was going to say? :) )

Rather than teaching college students about nutrition, it may be better for their dietary habits to school them about food growth, manufacturing and production. Think of it as better nutrition by way of a social movement rather than diet how-to. 

After students took a “Food and Society” course, that never told them to eat “better,” they ate more fruits and vegetables and fewer high-fat animal products and sweets. The class focused mainly on social and environmental issues related to food (a la “Food Inc.” or “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”), rather than nutritional content. Control peers who took a health psychology, obesity or community health class during the same time period reported no nutritional improvements. The population who took one of those three classes actually slanted toward eating fewer vegetables after the course.

The Stanford researchers who designed and performed the study (which involved pre-course and post-course nutritional questionnaires, so results may need to be taken with a grain of salt) said that they had likely reached deeper into the students’ needs, sparking new internal motivation to make healthier choices.

What would be the most effective way to persuade you to improve your diet?

Educate students about the food production system and make them more likely to ditch fast food. (Image from From the Vault Radio)
 

Water cooler conversation starter: Hospital sheets and gowns may make you feel even more nude in the future! Not less covered, but more skin-tone-colored. Medical offices should outfit patient beds—and patients—in apparel that is similar to the patient’s regular skin color, researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute suggest. That way, doctors can tell more easily with a glance whether their patient has obvious medical issues. Yellow, blue or pale skin can commonly signal a serious ailment. 

Do you ever diagnose yourself or seek treatment based on your skin color? I guess that I focus more on how I feel internally than how I look. But maybe I should start thinking more superficially in this case?

Another Label Spat…

As we discussed in the infancy of my blog, Smart Choices is/was a quite controversial new food labeling program. Shortly after it hit the market, Smart Choices was shelved—most likely due to legal issues.

This incident seemed to tear open the top (and apparently the sides) of the chip bag. Since then, health advocates have been openly sharing their feelings about label claims. Marion Nestle and Dr. David Ludwig recently published a commentary about this topic in the Journal of the American Medical Association proposing that all front-of-package nutrition claims be banned.

Nestle and Ludwig believe that no processed foods can possibly be as nutritious as natural foods, such as fruits, vegetables and whole grains. No fight from me there, but it’s unlikely that all Americans will eat a solely unprocessed diet. The pair also wrote that it is misleading for packaged foods to be marketed based on one quality alone (for example, sugary cereals fortified with nutrients). I can see that.

But is it really the government’s place to regulate how food manufacturers do business? What a perplexing situation! With the way some label zealots are leaning, soon foods may be sold in nearly blank boxes and bags. America is dealing with an obesity issue of epic proportions, increasing health care costs and possibly placing a burden on the medical infrastructure. So the government is affected by the nation’s collective expanding waistlines, but is targeting food labeling the best place to focus energy in the bulge battle?

How do you feel about package-front labels? Do they impact what lands in your grocery cart?

(Cartoon from Team VA Fitness—a bit exaggerated but fitting to the commentary ;) )

Up in Smoke

In a health-related version of the classic “chicken or egg” situation, a new Israeli study found that non-smokers had an higher average intelligence quotient than their smoking peers. And the more you smoke, the more your IQ numbers drop (even after accounting for socioeconomic status variability) . But does the smoking cause a decrease in intelligence or are people who begin with lower IQs more likely to take up smoking? Hard to say…

The researchers looked at more than 20,000 young men enlisted in the military. Twenty eight percent smoked at least one cigarette per day and about 68 percent had never taken a drag. Non-smokers average IQ was approximately 101. Soldiers who smoked one to five cigarettes each day was about 98. How about those who smoked a pack or more? They averaged IQs around 90.

After comparing intelligence levels of 70 pairs brothers in the service and the study, one who smoked and one who abstained, the researchers still noted a higher IQ among the non-smokers. “The findings suggest that lower IQ individuals are more likely to choose to smoke, rather than that smoking makes people less intelligent, Weiser and his team conclude (Reuters, 2010.”

Which do you believe came first, the smoke or the shortsightedness?

(Image from Contempster)

Hey, is that Sarah Palin’s hand? Get it? The palm writing? :D Just kidding of course.

By the way, this week is National Eating Disorder Awareness Week. If you heard my first interview on the Dr. Fitness and the Fat Guy show, you know that this cause is close to my heart. If not, here’s a story I was interviewed for that aired on a local TV station for NEDAwareness week a few years ago. If you would like more information or need guidance, click on over.
(Image from NationalEatingDisorders.org)

Water cooler conversation starter: As the 2010 Olympics wrap up, my mind wanders to the next games. Others are thinking ahead as well—petitioning a new “sport” to join the summer Olympic events. What’s the new proposed competition? Pole Dancing! Thoughts?

Blame It On the A-a-a-ads

OK, let’s get the bad news out of the way first…commercials can increase obesity rates in youth. Interestingly, the total amount of TV children watched had little effect. But the more advertising the small fries see during that TV time, the more likely they are to be overweight, UCLA researchers found.

Children generally squirm and wiggle around while watching the tube, so they can rack up a bit of physical activity while viewing, the researchers noted. Also, kids who watch sports may be inspired to try them out themselves. A moderate amount of regular programming gets the green light from these scientists, while the commercials take the blame for the commonly discussed TV/weight gain link.

Foods high in sugar and fast foods account for nearly three in every four food ads during children’s programming, another study found. That’s what the UCLA researchers think is the issue, especially since youngsters see about 30 hours of food-focused ads each year.

Time for a TiVo to skip through the commercials? Or perhaps a distraction: my commercial/TV workout!

(Image from Kiwi Mag Online)

Discount in Aisle One

Now for the good news: when shoppers can get a deal on fruits and vegetables at the grocery store, they buy more than one pound more of produce per week! Research in the past has shown that lowering the price of more nutritious foods persuades eaters to bypass the less healthy options, but this study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, adds another interesting component. The rise in produce purchases may actually stay in place even after the prices return to their previous (higher) levels. Shoppers created new, positive habits or found new favorites!

In this New Zealand-based study, shoppers either received discounts on healthful foods, nutrition education, a combination of discounts with education or no treatment (control). Those saving cash received markdowns of 12.5 percent. The discount group bought almost two pounds more healthy food than their educated and control group peers and continued to do so even six months after the study ended. In this experiment, nutrition education did little to improve shopper’s eating habits.

Perhaps, eventually, instead of subsidizing in the current method, the government, farmers and dietitians/physicians can team up to create a new plan to subsidize more nutritious fruits and vegetables? These results seem to show that people shop more with their wallets in mind than their stomachs or brains.

With the current economy, do you think the results of this study may be different today than, say, ten years ago? Do you have any creative ideas for pushing shoppers towards smarter purchases (and steer clear of the Big Gulp and Family Size bag of pork rinds?)

(Image from EL Civics)

And just a friendly reminder to all of you who got walloped with a massive snow storm this past week (or past two or three weeks…), be careful and safe out there when shoveling! If you use proper form, are in decent condition and take fairly frequent breaks, shoveling can be an excellent workout, however.

Water cooler conversation starter: In what could be one of the most disturbing TV show concepts ever, BBC is launching a series called “I’m Hotter Than My Daughter.” Women that are nearly Grandmas brag about their attractiveness and desirability—which they claim is much more apparent in themselves than their offspring. If that doesn’t spark insecurity in the daughters I don’t know what will! But that’s only my opinion.

Would you watch this show? Is it harmless fun or a sign that society is headed down the drain?

Digging into a restaurant meal can easily trigger a calorie explosion (basically the main premise behind the “Eat This, Not That” empire). In recent years, however, some dining establishments have added more nutritious, less fat-laden options to their menus. I’ll be highlighting more of these in the future, but this week, let’s take a look at my choice at the Mexican chain Carlos O’ Kelly’s!

Behold the Charbroiled Chicken Salad: lettuce, carrots, red cabbage, sweet corn, green and red peppers, black beans, chives, pico de gallo and baked fat-free flour tortilla pieces (I omitted the lite cheddar and fat-free raspberry vinaigrette, opting for salsa as my dressing instead—have you ever tried salsa as salad dressing? Good stuff!)

Nutrition information for salad with cheese, dressing and all menu listed ingredients: 310 calories, 35 calories from fat, 4 grams of fat, 7 grams of fiber.

Who would have thought that you could find such a fresh, healthy looking meal at a Mexican restaurant?!? I don’t know about you, but when I think about south of the border specialties, these come to mind:

(Photo from OK Cleek)

(Photo from Nachos NY)

But, as C.O’K shows, even restaurants selling the most normally greasy cuisine can offer fresh, well-balanced options too. They even have a whole menu section with “Lightened Up” dishes and gluten free options for those with intolerances.

If you are a restaurant common patron, this site, while a bit cluttered, is a nice resource to check out your restaurant choices before a meal out!

At which type of cuisine/restaurant do you find it most difficult to find healthy options? What’s your go-to choice at restaurants when you’re looking to make a nutritious choice?

Cookie Monster

Have you heard of the “Cookie Diet?” It’s been around the block a time or two after it was introduced in the 1970s. Many are claiming that the bakery-based diet is back in style, since cookies are now available for purchase online. Plus numerous celebrities have been spotted with the designer cookies, including Denise Richards, Jennifer Hudson and Kim Kardashian.

The cookies on various cookie diets claim to have a special formula of amino acids and/or fiber to keep you satisfied with an overall plan averaging about 1,000 calories each day. No wonder you lose weight on the cookie diet! While many studies have shown that calorie balance is crucial for weight maintenance, the cookie diet daily calorie count is very low for anyone, not to mention active individuals. Most plans suggest eating a diet of almost solely cookies, with perhaps one other meal for the day. One scary aspect: some of the cookie “formulas” are secret, so you aren’t completely aware of what your body is living off of for the vast majority of its sustenance. Plus, there is no mention of a couple of very important food groups—fruits and vegetables.

Founders claim that these plans are “behavior modification programs” not diets, but if I were to change my behavior to eat packaged cookies everyday, I don’t think that it would be something I could maintain. What would you do if you had a catered lunch at work or were invited to dinner with friends? Still, one woman quoted in the New York Times article said she was happy with her results: a weight loss of 40 lbs. in three months (with a price tag of $56/week for the cookies, that means $672 over the course of the three months).

What do you think about the cookie diet? Would you like to try it?

(courtesy of salon.com)

It’s a Party in the USA

Swine (H1N1) Flu parties are sweeping the nation. Why? Some parents feel that their kids will be better off acquiring the H1N1 virus from their friends at these get-togethers and receiving immunity that way, before the disease can mutate into something potentially more virulent. (Similar to chicken pox parties some parents have when a classmate contracts chicken pox. The aim is to get the child infected so that they gain immunity and are protected from the virus when it is more severe in adulthood). So should we be seeking out the latest sick person and cozying up to them? Experts think not.

Partygoers may acquire complications from a disease they may have completely avoided, or they may pass the virus on to someone who may be particularly at-risk for complications. Doctors quoted in this article say that your best bet is vaccination, when it becomes available to you.

What about the safety of the quickly-manufactured vaccine? It’s virtually the same as the seasonal flu vaccine distributed every year, just with a different viral component to combat this particular strain.

How are you feeling these days? Any tips that you swear by to keep healthy when others around you are ill?

(courtesy of mid-day.com)

Water Cooler Conversation Starter: Constant cell phone alerts harm memory, cognitive performance and decision-making skills, according to a study in the Journal of Environmental Psychology reported in SELF. Sounds as if “silent” mode may make you some friends at work! (Sidenote: when walking in a busy area, it’s best to hang up. You may miss the unicycling clown—or a car speeding through the intersection).

Spick and Span…and Shame?

We all know that hand washing is important—it’s been practically drilled into us since, well, we were born. Yet some still skip the sink on their way out of the bathroom. Scientists have been studying how to influence everyone to suds up before leaving the loo, and they seem to have uncovered the best tool: embarrassment.

To correspond with Global Hand Washing Day (today, October 15!) research was released saying that if you have a neighbor who is washing with soap, you are much more likely to as well. It seems that people don’t want to be considered “dirty,” even by those they may never see again.

Interestingly, 32 percent of men washed up with soap after using the facilities, while 64 percent of women did. Way to go ladies! There’s still plenty of room for improvement though.

(courtesy of BBC News)

Personally, I know that I am a little grossed out if someone exits the stall and heads straight to the door. I’m much more likely to use the paper towel handle pull move if I see a person touch without washing (which is  a bit irrational, I know, since there could be many people touching sans-wash that I didn’t see, but it makes me feel better).

A cool tip from the video: if you have long nails, rub your fingertips in your opposite palm, so that the suds from one hand make it under your nails.

Do you have any quirky hygiene habits or tips to help us all avoid germs this flu season?

Too bad we missed the Golden Poo Awards…

Choosing Comfort

You have a big deadline looming, are in the midst of a squabble with a loved one and are contemplating a big purchase. What do you reach for at dinner time? Chicken pot pie? Chocolate? Comfort food in any manifestation? A recent study in the Journal of Consumer Research found that people are actually more likely to try new (healthier) foods when under stress, even when they say they think that stressed individuals reach for comfort food.

The research didn’t mention why individuals may opt for the healthier choice over the traditional comfort food. Why do you think this may be? My guess: perhaps stressed people are seeking some way to control their environments and making more nutritious food choices is a simple, tangible way to do this.

Do you notice a change in your health behaviors when under stress?

(BBQ pork Mac and Cheese Grilled Cheese sandwich courtesy of This is Why You’re Fat)

Water cooler conversation starter: Feeling anxious or depressed? Rediscover nature. Even living near a green/park area can have multiple mental health benefits.

Bad market, long life?

As a whole, Americans tend to have longer lifespans during times of economic recession and depression, according to University of Michigan researchers who studied data from the 1920s-1940s. They guessed that since more people drive when they are financially in the black, more deaths occur on the roads. Plus citizens have more money to spend more on alcohol and drugs and may work more and sleep less.

Critics say that this finding may not ring true today, since countless medical discoveries have been made since the Great Depression. Others note that many people are currently skipping their important medications to save dough. What do you think? Have you made any changes in your lifestyle in an effort to pinch pennies that could lead to a longer or shorter life?

(courtesy of Comedy Central’s Indecision)

Feeding the Kids

We all have lived through the days of the grease-pooled pizza and purple hot dogs that roll off of the grade school lunch line. But one company, Revolution Foods, is attempting to make nutritious school lunch food delicious. And the kids are actually enjoying it! Only one problem: higher quality food comes at a cost. Schools are often subjected to whatever food products the government can get at a good price, hence Charlie’s chicken nugget meal for the fifth time this month.

Regulations require schools to meet specific nutrition guidelines, but several health experts believe that, as a society, we are doing a disservice to our youth by not feeding them more nutritious foods because of budget concerns. What is cheaper: warming a pan of corn dog nuggets and french fries or paying for additional staffers to prepare fresh fruits, vegetables and lean protein options (that are less subsidized by the government than the sneakily corn-filled foods that often fill school menus)?

Is there a way that we can give students healthy options that they will eat and families can afford—without too much reliance on government financial intervention? 

(courtesy of Washington Health Foundation)

Water cooler conversation starter: working out with another person (or many!) can make fitness more enjoyable, which makes you more likely to stick with it. Who’s ready to hit the gym with me?

A new labeling system is stirring up controversy among food science and obesity researchers and it’s hitting your grocery store shelves now. The New York Times introduced the program and the debate earlier this month. Click here to read “For Your Health, Froot Loops.”

So why do we need another labeling system about nutritional content of food when we already have the facts on the side of the box? The president of the Smart Choices board and dean of Tufts University’s Nutrition Science and Policy school explained:

…the program was also influenced by research into consumer behavior. That research showed that, while shoppers wanted more information, they did not want to hear negative messages or feel their choices were being dictated to them.

“The checkmark means the food item is a ‘better for you’ product, as opposed to having an x on it saying ‘Don’t eat this,’ ” Dr. Kennedy said. “Consumers are smart enough to deduce that if it doesn’t have the checkmark, by implication it’s not a ‘better for you’ product. They want to have a choice. They don’t want to be told ‘You must do this.’

Kellog’s, Kraft, PepsiCo and General Mills have all boarded the Smart Choice ship and will display a large green checkmark, saying that the product has been approved by the program and is a nutritious buy.

(Courtesy of nytimes.com)

This program raises so many questions that I feel like an inquisitive four-year-old bothering their busy parents.

• Do these companies actually care about providing a nutritious option for their consumers or are they more concerned with their own bottom line—hoping that this check mark will increase sales?
• And what makes a food “healthy?”
• How do you make choices about what foods you eat? Is there a specific nutrient/listing on the nutrition facts that you look to first?
• Would a positive reinforcement system like Smart Choices have more influence on your supermarket pick than the traditional nutrition facts label?
• Does the Smart Choices system do too much to highlight the benefits of a food (for example, fortified with vitamins, some whole grains) while avoiding nutritional pitfalls (such as added sugars or high sodium levels)?
• Should food labeling be regulated so that food producers can’t create their own system that could potentially “trick” customers?

I’d love to hear your responses on any or all of the above questions…or your general opinion of the article or the Smart Choices program.

Have a great Thursday and I’ll see you Saturday for an eats post (unless I come up with more interesting articles or other items to post in the meantime). Look forward to a yummy product review!

Edited to add: How do I get one of those green checkmark suckers on my peach?